RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01083
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  DAV

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge  be  changed  to
general (under honorable conditions).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust  and
the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts  pertaining  to  this  application,  extracted  from  the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letter  prepared  by  the
appropriate office of the Air  Force.  Accordingly,  there  is  no  need  to
recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Separations Branch, Directorate  of  Personnel  Program  Management,  HQ
AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed  this  application  and  states  that  the   discharge
authority  indicates  the  type  of  discharge  was  appropriate  based   on
applicant’s record during his current enlistment.  Applicant did not  submit
any new evidence or  identify  any  errors  in  the  discharge  proceedings.
Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Staff Judge Advocate, HQ AFPC/JA, also  reviewed  this  application  and
states that when applying the standards from the Air Force  Instruction  36-
3208,  Administrative  Separation  of  Airmen,  Chapter  4,  to  applicant’s
approximate 40 days of service, they are unable to come  to  the  conclusion
that his service was either honest or faithful.  In fact, these 40  days  of
service were spread out over  nearly  28  years  and  interrupted  by  three
undisputed acts of misconduct, and Absent Without Leave  (AWOL),  an  escape
from correctional custody, and a more than 27-year desertion  terminated  by
apprehension.  In their opinion, an honorable  discharge  would  be  totally
inappropriate.  Likewise, they conclude  that  a  general  (under  honorable
conditions)  discharge  is  also  inappropriate.   Applicant’s  40  days  of
service marred as it was by three criminal acts simply  does  not  meet  the
standard  of   honest   and   faithful   as   required   for   a   discharge
characterization of general  (under  honorable  conditions).   Without  even
considering applicant’s arguments to the contrary, the commander’s  decision
to  discharge  applicant  under  other   than   honorable   conditions   was
appropriate based on the nature of applicant’s service  and  the  basis  for
the discharge.  It  was  not  only  authorized,  it  was  also  the  service
characterization recommended by the  appropriate  governing  directives  and
instructions.

Applicant would argue that because he was informed  in  October  1996,  that
his records contained a discharge certificate dated  28 June  1969,  he  was
discharged on that date from active  duty  service.   It  seems  incongruent
that applicant’s alleged discharge from active duty could have predated  his
return from his initial  AWOL,  his  Article  15  punishment  in  correction
custody, and his desertion from the  Air  Force.   Given  the  date  of  the
discharge applicant claims to have relied on, he could not, in  good  faith,
have honestly believed that the Air Force had  discharged  him  from  active
duty.  A reasonably prudent individual would have  questioned  the  validity
of the discharge certificate and  then  inquired  about  outstanding  arrest
warrants.  Applicant did not make these inquiries and, had he  done  so,  he
would have learned it was merely a certification of his separation from  the
Air Force Reserve pursuant to his entry  into  an  active  duty  enlistment.
This lack of due diligence overcomes applicant’s  claimed  reliance  on  the
representation that a discharge had occurred.

Applicant would have the Board believe that he deserted under duress.   Even
if applicant’s story—that while in correctional custody a supervisor  pushed
his head through a window, is true, the incident would  not  justify  escape
from correctional custody and  desertion  for  nearly  28  years.   Such  an
incident would warrant a  breach  of  correctional  custody  to  report  the
offense to proper authorities and seek medical treatment, but not  a  flight
of nearly three decades.  While the incidents leading up  to  his  desertion
are relevant, they simply do  not  overcome  the  length  of  his  desertion
coupled  with  his  earlier  AWOL.   Therefore,  they  recommend  denial  of
applicant’s request.

A complete copy of their Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________






APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the evaluations and states that HQ  AFPC/JA  states  that
“it seems incongruent that applicant’s alleged discharged from  active  duty
could have (asserted by applicant) predated  his  return  from  his  initial
AWOL, his Article 15 punishment in correction  custody,  and  his  desertion
from the Air Force.  Given the date of discharge applicant  claims  to  have
relied on, he could not, in good faith, have honestly believed that the  Air
Force had discharged from active duty.”  He finds  that  very  condescending
and implying a lack of intelligence.  He states he  wrote  to  the  National
Personnel Records Center (NPRC) to find out what his  status  was  regarding
the Air Force.  He submitted to  NPRC  a  detailed  history  of  his  Absent
Without Leave (AWOL) status, leaving correctional custody, and  he  informed
them that he moved to Canada.  NPRC sent him documentation stating  that  he
received an honorable discharge.

AFPC/JA also states that “applicant would have the  Board  believe  that  he
deserted under duress;” applicant states he does not know when a  person  is
scared and distrustful of authority, except when  the  authority  figure  is
the person threatening you.  He believes  correct  or  not,  that  while  in
correctional custody the sergeant meant to hurt him and he  was  scared  and
had no faith in the Air Force.

He escaped from correctional custody nearly three decades ago, found a  home
in Canada where he was accepted as a person not based on ethnic origin.   He
became a citizen, married  to  the  same  woman  for  19  years,  became  an
addictions counselor with the British Columbia Government,  and  a  director
of an outpatient alcohol and drug clinic.

He is not asking for an honorable discharge his request  is  for  a  general
discharge, which according to the  uniform  code  of  military  justice,  is
separation with honor but to a lesser degree than  an  honorable  discharge.
He claims he would not receive most veterans benefits because  he  lives  in
Canada.  If a general discharge is not appropriate, he would like  an  entry
level separation.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law  or
regulations.

2.    The application was not timely filed; however, it is in  the  interest
of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice to warrant changing his  separation
from the Air Force to  an  entry  level  separation.   After  reviewing  the
circumstances of this case, we believe that applicant’s discharge should  be
changed to “Uncharacterized”  and  the  reason  for  separation  changed  to
“Entry Level Separation”.  We note that the  applicant  was  Absent  Without
Leave (AWOL) from 7 August 1969 to 15 May 1997 and  based  on  documentation
he had received, he believed he was honorably discharged in 1969.   In  view
of  the  possibility  that  the  applicant  may   have   misunderstood   the
information received and to remove any doubt of an injustice,  we  recommend
his separation  be  changed  to  an  entry  level  separation.   Applicant’s
request  to  have  his  discharge  upgraded  to  general  (under   honorable
conditions) was considered; however, in  view  of  the  fact  that  he  only
served 90 days on active duty,  and  based  on  current  standards  he  most
likely would have received an entry level  separation,  we  do  not  believe
that  his  discharge  should  be  upgraded  to  general   (under   honorable
conditions).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 28 May 1997, he received an
“Uncharacterized” entry level separation under the provisions of AFI 36-
3208, by reason of entry level performance and conduct, with a Separation
Program Designator Code of “JGA,” and a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code
of “2C.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 16 December 1998, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
            Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member
            Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 March 1998, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 June 1998.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 24 July 1998.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 10 August 1998.
      Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Response, dated 27 August 1998.




               CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
               Panel Chair


AFBCMR 98-01083



MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 28 May 1997, he received
an “Uncharacterized” entry level separation under the provisions of AFI 36-
3208, by reason of entry level performance and conduct, with a Separation
Program Designator Code of “JGA,” and a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code
of “2C.”





                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency